LG 65EC9700 65 OLED Anticipation thread - Page 21 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #601 of 3174 Old 08-24-2014, 07:56 PM
Senior Member
 
unknownuser200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 51
another thing i noticed was there is alot of noise in the picture and artifacts no matter the setting. like i said before if someone has a list of settings for it to make it better let me know
unknownuser200 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #602 of 3174 Old 08-24-2014, 09:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Jason626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknownuser200 View Post
hey like i said if you have suggestions on settings you like me to use im welcome the store i work at doesnt care if play with the tv. but as far as i can tell the 9300 series is not all its made out to be. for the money id get a sony x900b
Did you run the same material/content on both tvs with all the extra processing turned off. That why you'll be comparing them on equal terms. Grab a bluray ray and play a scene on the both.
Jason626 is online now  
post #603 of 3174 Old 08-24-2014, 10:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Jason626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Yes, they are fabbed flat and then attached to a thin curved structure so that they are able to be effectively free-standing despite being so thin. Because the OLED panel itself provides no rigidity (note the bendable OLEDs coming in 2015 :-), supporting it in a flat configuration requires more structure (and more cost) than the thin curved free-standing curved structure. The 8800 and its frame is a good example - more involved/expensive.

When they are done being fabbed flat, what you have is essentially a thin/flexible sheet of glass/plastic. A curve adds significant structural integrity to that bendable surface and without it is much more involved to support it in a 'flat' configuration. Think about trying to get a sheet of paper to stand up on one edge (only possible if it has been curved).

I have sympathy for LG with the curve now - they need to do it to keep OLED costs as low as possible. Samsung and their curved LED/LCDs is another story and I have no sympathy for them,




Would be interested in any evidence to support your believe that it is 'not remotely true for )
I really think this curve is more of a fad for looks than structural.

Check out the Samsung LCD c9000. That has the thinnest LCD tv screen that I have ever seen. Some Laptop computers have extremely thin displays. Both are thin like OLED but flat.

OLED and LCD are as thin as paper in raw form. A couple years back I remember dismantling a broken LCD screen out of curiosity. It's taking that paper and adding its housing to structurally support it. Think of photos being put in a picture frame. Paintings being on display. All are flimsy until proper supported.

I guess I'm just saying curved isn't all that much more support. Why would LCD tvs go curved then? Being made flat for years. More marketing than engineering IMO.
XPSTester likes this.
Jason626 is online now  
post #604 of 3174 Old 08-24-2014, 10:57 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason626 View Post
I really think this curve is more of a fad for looks than structural.
For LCD, certainly. For OLED, maybe/probably not.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason626 View Post
Check out the Samsung LCD c9000. That has the thinnest LCD tv screen that I have ever seen. Some Laptop computers have extremely thin displays. Both are thin like OLED but flat.
LED/LCDs have a backlight, OLEDs do not. OLED TV screens are thinner than the thickness of a pencil (after being reinforced with plastic backing), LED/LCD TVs cannot be as thin as OLED TVs.

And supporting a small surface are like a laptop display to be flat despite being non-rigid has pretty much nothing to do with supporting a much larger surface area like a 55" TV to be flat despite being non-rigid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason626 View Post
OLED and LCD are as thin as paper in raw form. A couple years back I remember dismantling a broken LCD screen out of curiosity. It's taking that paper and adding its housing to structurally support it. Think of photos being put in a picture frame. Paintings being on display. All are flimsy until proper supported.

I guess I'm just saying curved isn't all that much more support. Why would LCD tvs go curved then? Being made flat for years. More marketing than engineering IMO.
Think of plywood - gluing several layers together can make plywood far more rigid than just a single sublayer alone. OLED has basically only a single sublayer while LED/LCD has at least two if not more. LED/LCD is certainly more rigid than OLED which is why the challenge of supporting a large OLED TV is greater than supporting a large LED/LCD TV.

Putting an OLED screen into an LED/LCD TV body may result in a TV which is too flexible (in which case, strengthening that body would add cost).

I'm just saying that there is more rationale to strengthening an OLED screen by making it curved than there is for an LED/LCD screen (which is pure marketing / gimmickry).
fafrd is online now  
post #605 of 3174 Old 08-24-2014, 11:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Jason626's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: illinois
Posts: 395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
For LCD, certainly. For OLED, maybe/probably not.





LED/LCDs have a backlight, OLEDs do not. OLED TV screens are thinner than the thickness of a pencil (after being reinforced with plastic backing), LED/LCD TVs cannot be as thin as OLED TVs.

And supporting a small surface are like a laptop display to be flat despite being non-rigid has pretty much nothing to do with supporting a much larger surface area like a 55" TV to be flat despite being non-rigid.




Think of plywood - gluing several layers together can make plywood far more rigid than just a single sublayer alone. OLED has basically only a single sublayer while LED/LCD has at least two if not more. LED/LCD is certainly more rigid than OLED which is why the challenge of supporting a large OLED TV is greater than supporting a large LED/LCD TV.

Putting an OLED screen into an LED/LCD TV body may result in a TV which is too flexible (in which case, strengthening that body would add cost).

I'm just saying that there is more rationale to strengthening an OLED screen by making it curved than there is for an LED/LCD screen (which is pure marketing / gimmickry).
Check out the side view of the few years old edge lit led LCD Samsung c9000. The screen itself is really as thin like OLED.

http://m.samsung.com/ie/consumer/tv-...E55C9000ZKXXU/


http://images.samsung.com/is/image/s...wnload-Source$

If OLED is a wet noodle or like a screen for a window, curving it is no where near enough strength to hold itself up.

Single layer OLED with its stacks and color filter wrgb might be as thin as LCD layers?

Last edited by Jason626; 08-25-2014 at 12:58 PM.
Jason626 is online now  
post #606 of 3174 Old 08-24-2014, 11:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Cleveland Plasma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 12,455
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
1 defect per sheet would mean 83.3% yield and LG has indicated that their yields are now better than 90%. At those yields, there are only about 40 defects per 100 sheets and the yields of both 65" and 77" are close to 90% as well due to using only about 2/3 of the full sheet (so about 1/3 of those 40 defects land outside of any panel).

I just learned that the 55EC9300 can be had for $3000 here on the Forum and several are reporting picking it up from B&M retailers at that same price.

I'm expecting the 77EC9800 to be priced below $10,000 (and possibly as low as $9000) despite the rumors.

The only reason for this would be yields are not really close to 90% as LG has indicated (which would then mean the other prices could be unsupportable as well) or they are trying to make more profit off of customers for 77" OLEDs (which would be incredibly stupid this year when they are launching 'for real' and trying to take mindshare and market share from the plethora of low-cost, large-screen 4K LED/LCD offerings...).
This may be correct, we will see. I will still say 15K, just to be safe, on the street. Even at 15K, these will sell.........sure not as many if they where 10K, but they will sell.
Cleveland Plasma is offline  
post #607 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 12:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
ALMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
LG Electronics (LG) today announced the start of sales of the world’s first OLED TV with 4K (3840 x 2160) resolution. Available in 77- and 65-inch screen sizes (models 77EG9700 and 65EC9700), LG 4K OLED TVs boast the very best display technology currently available — a curved panel composed of organic light-emitting diodes in Ultra HD quality. LG 4K OLED TV, highlights the superiority of OLED over conventional display technology, providing a viewing experience that is nothing short of amazing. Simply put, it is the future of television.
http://www.lgnewsroom.com/newsroom/contents/64643
vaktmestern likes this.
ALMA is offline  
post #608 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 12:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALMA View Post

Good find!


"LG will begin taking pre-orders for its 65- and 77-inch 4K OLED TVs starting in Korea this week, with availability in key markets in North America and Europe to follow soon after. Visitors to IFA can see LG’s 4K OLED TVs for themselves by visiting Hall 11.2 of Messe Berlin from September 5-10."
vaktmestern and Vegas oled like this.
fafrd is online now  
post #609 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 12:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason626 View Post
Check out the side view of the few years old edge lit led LCD Samsung c9000. The screen itself is really as thin like OLED.

http://m.samsung.com/ie/consumer/tv-...E55C9000ZKXXU/

If OLED is a wet noodle or like a screen for a window, curving it is no where near enough strength to hold itself up.

Single layer OLED with its stacks and color filter wrgb might be as thin as LCD layers?
No, the OLED including substrate, drive transistors, OLED layer, WRGB color filter and protective glass is probably about the same thickness as the LED/LCD including substrate, drive transistors, LCD layer, WRGB color filter and protective glass.

But then the LED/LCD has the LED backlight which is at least that thick again (and quite a bit thicker in the case of direct lit). The backlight structure of an LED/LCD provides additional rigidity to the LCD panel itself which is unavailable to OLED.

The curve alone does not hold OLED up. There is a plastic support sheet/structure that adds additional rigidity, so you have curved plastic + curved OLED. If the entire structure was composed the same way but flat, it would be too flexible. The plastic support structure can be made more rigid by adding ribs, thickness, etc... but all of this is going to add cost.

There is no bezel on OLED (while LED/LCD needs a bezel, especially for edge-lit because that is where the LEDs are). Bezels add a great deal of structural integrity / rigidity. OLED could add a bezel, but again, that would add cost.
fafrd is online now  
post #610 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 12:52 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 772
PeterS just found this: http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/24/lg-4k-oled/


No new pricing news: 'We don't have an official US price for the TV yet, but HDGuru's usually reliable retail sources say the 65-inch 4K model (there's also a 77-inch version) will arrive for about $7,000 next month'
fafrd is online now  
post #611 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 01:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
ALMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Pictures from the press conference:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lge/se...7646808632511/
vaktmestern and 5x10 like this.
ALMA is offline  
post #612 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 08:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vaktmestern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Ahh love the 65" looks ...

Last edited by vaktmestern; 08-25-2014 at 08:25 AM.
vaktmestern is online now  
post #613 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 09:34 AM
Senior Member
 
oni222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)
Liked: 55
I assume the 77" is the same model they show cased that could go from curved to flat at a press of a button? Can anybody else confirm?

Fronts: Polk Audio Monitor70 Series II
Center: Polk Audio CS2 Series II
Surrounds: Polk Audio Monitor50 Series II
Sub: 2x Polk PSW505
Reciever: Pioneer VSX-80
TV: Samsung 3D UN55C8000
oni222 is offline  
post #614 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 325 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALMA View Post
Pictures from the press conference:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lge/se...7646808632511/
Can someone explain why the 65" looks bigger than the 77"


sytech is offline  
post #615 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,953
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Yes, they are fabbed flat and then attached to a thin curved structure so that they are able to be effectively free-standing despite being so thin. Because the OLED panel itself provides no rigidity (note the bendable OLEDs coming in 2015 :-), supporting it in a flat configuration requires more structure (and more cost) than the thin curved free-standing curved structure. The 8800 and its frame is a good example - more involved/expensive.

When they are done being fabbed flat, what you have is essentially a thin/flexible sheet of glass/plastic. A curve adds significant structural integrity to that bendable surface and without it is much more involved to support it in a 'flat' configuration. Think about trying to get a sheet of paper to stand up on one edge (only possible if it has been curved).

I have sympathy for LG with the curve now - they need to do it to keep OLED costs as low as possible. Samsung and their curved LED/LCDs is another story and I have no sympathy for them,
Is this some monumentally expensive undertaking or something? Adding rigidity to an otherwise soft sheet is not some reason to invent a curved display and tout the curve as a feature rather than a compromise. You're acting as if the curve is what makes OLED possible, or even affordable, and that simply cannot be. The (curved) EA9800 streeted at $3000, (ignoring the $1999 MC thing as an unsustainable blip)....it's hard to imagine that skyrocketing up in price just because they had to add plastic to make it flatter and slightly thicker.

And if thinness is the goal, We're well past the thinness wars where 4mm vs 10 or even 15mm is ever going to matter. Quite frankly, they're thin enough to the public, and besides, if they ever want speakers in the thing, thinness goes out the window unless major concessions are made.
Jason626 likes this.

Send this to all your friends! When will this stupidity end? So hysterical: Vertical Video Syndrome --- a PSA.

Last edited by tgm1024; 08-25-2014 at 10:13 AM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #616 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Esteban Medaglia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 208
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattopotamus View Post
I think he just meant 4k cost a premium price. If they are selling a 4k 65" at that price, why not a cheaper 1080P set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
Can someone explain why the 65" looks bigger than the 77"


The photo seems to have been taken with a wide-angle / fish-eye lens, so the sides are distorted/enlarged/stretched, while the center isn't. It's just an optical illusion. Notice how both sets on the sides seem to have a much wider aspect ratio as well...
ONDr and vaktmestern like this.
Esteban Medaglia is offline  
post #617 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,953
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
The curve alone does not hold OLED up. There is a plastic support sheet/structure that adds additional rigidity, so you have curved plastic + curved OLED. If the entire structure was composed the same way but flat, it would be too flexible. The plastic support structure can be made more rigid by adding ribs, thickness, etc... but all of this is going to add cost.
Again, the cheapest curve (EA9800) is a $3000 (or $2000 if you're lucky to get the MC thing) item. Adding those "ribs, thickness, etc." isn't going to amount to anything appreciable. It doesn't have to all be carbon fiber. As you said: "it's plastic." This isn't a rocket science problem to solve. At least, I can't imagine the case for it being so.
Jason626 likes this.

Send this to all your friends! When will this stupidity end? So hysterical: Vertical Video Syndrome --- a PSA.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #618 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Desk.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
Can someone explain why the 65" looks bigger than the 77"


I'm wondering it it's an optical illusion caused by the angle of the sets in relation to the camera.

The 65", which looks lovely, almost appears 2.35:1, not 16x9.

Desk
Desk. is offline  
post #619 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,953
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esteban Medaglia View Post
The photo seems to have been taken with a wide-angle / fish-eye lens, so the sides are distorted/enlarged/stretched, while the center isn't. It's just an optical illusion. Notice how both sets on the sides seem to have a much wider aspect ratio as well...
Correct, but not because the sides warp things. It's because the sides are closer, and the effect of that is exaggerated way beyond anything you'd normally expect. Look at the lettering they placed on the tables themselves. This kind of thing is common: we had a video recently where people were confused at how small a large panel looked....until you noticed that the persons hand visibly shrunk like crazy as he waved it backward a mere foot or two.

It's really unfortunate when they do things like this....they don't need to. They could have shot this with a far more conservative lens (and/or distance + zoom) and cropped that image into a wide landscape to avoid such things.

Send this to all your friends! When will this stupidity end? So hysterical: Vertical Video Syndrome --- a PSA.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #620 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,953
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desk. View Post
I'm wondering it it's an optical illusion caused by the angle of the sets in relation to the camera.

The 65", which looks lovely, almost appears 2.35:1, not 16x9.

Desk
It has to do with how far away the subjects are from the lens. It's the reverse of what happens when you track backwards and zoom inwards where perspective flattens. Look at the size of the arms for instance. The difference in distance to the lens is may 2 feet, but they're optically very different in size. Look how much they shrunk:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	distortion.png
Views:	369
Size:	177.2 KB
ID:	229033  

Send this to all your friends! When will this stupidity end? So hysterical: Vertical Video Syndrome --- a PSA.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #621 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vaktmestern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 253 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Looking at the 65" im glad i didnt jump into a 9300 that i would regret 4k n those looks .... lovly
vaktmestern is online now  
post #622 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,953
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 974
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Would be interested in any evidence to support your believe that it is 'not remotely true for OLED'

My evidence that it is true that yields for 1080p panels and 4K panels of equal size is roughly equal is the pricing that has already been established for the 65EC9700: $3000 for the 55EC9300 equates to $18000 raw sales revenue per Gen-8 production sheet (or $16,200 at 90% yield), while $6250 for the 65EC9700 equates to $18750 raw revenue per Gen-8 production sheet (or $16,688 at 90% yield).

If the yields to produce 4K OLED panels were significantly lower than the yields to produce same-sized 1080p OLED panels, then LG would have been forced to price the 65EC9700 far higher than they have (or could have priced the 55EC9300 far lower than they have, but I think we both know that that is very unlikely :-)
First, let's agree that the pricing model that LG took with the EA pair (the only models with any real history) took us all by surprise. Given that, I wince when we try to draw new rules regarding the relationship between yield and pricing as if we understand what LG is doing. We don't. We have to start with that as an assumption. Not ONE person here would have thought that the EA would have been so inexpensive so very soon after it was released. We have to admit that we're not experts in this regard.

Secondly, we need to decide if resolution affects anything at all, or if the resolution-cost curve suddenly goes flat at 2K to 4K. Does it shoot upward at 8K? Does it drop horrendously at 1K? The tolerances are dramatically changed. IF the bulk of the yield determinants are based upon the actual layering in the stack and not the tolerances needed in the positioning the electronics in a Cartesian plane, than it "wouldn't cost anymore" to make the 4K panel. But how can this be so?

Send this to all your friends! When will this stupidity end? So hysterical: Vertical Video Syndrome --- a PSA.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #623 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,781
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I hope LG's 4k upscaling is good since 99.9% of my content with be comcast or blu ray upscaled.
RobertR1 is offline  
post #624 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 11:53 AM
wse
AVS Special Member
 
wse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7,052
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 586 Post(s)
Liked: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
PeterS just found this: http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/24/lg-4k-oled/ No new pricing news: 'We don't have an official US price for the TV yet, but HDGuru's usually reliable retail sources say the 65-inch 4K model (there's also a 77-inch version) will arrive for about $7,000 next month'
SONY better start lowering their prices for LED TVs otherwise who in the right mind would buy Sony!

http://store.sony.com/65-class-diag-...pfm%3Dcategory

Let me see 65" OLED or Sony X950!
wse is offline  
post #625 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 12:26 PM
Member
 
Chris5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1 View Post
I hope LG's 4k upscaling is good since 99.9% of my content with be comcast or blu ray upscaled.
It should not be rocket science to scale up, at worst case it just doubles the pixels right and down I would have thought, as it's exactly 4x resolution. The real skill is doing the deinterlacing properly which is not an exact science I'm afraid that's why some people spend $1000's on scalers like lumagen.
Chris5 is offline  
post #626 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 12:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
First, let's agree that the pricing model that LG took with the EA pair (the only models with any real history) took us all by surprise. Given that, I wince when we try to draw new rules regarding the relationship between yield and pricing as if we understand what LG is doing. We don't. We have to start with that as an assumption. Not ONE person here would have thought that the EA would have been so inexpensive so very soon after it was released. We have to admit that we're not experts in this regard.

Secondly, we need to decide if resolution affects anything at all, or if the resolution-cost curve suddenly goes flat at 2K to 4K. Does it shoot upward at 8K? Does it drop horrendously at 1K? The tolerances are dramatically changed. IF the bulk of the yield determinants are based upon the actual layering in the stack and not the tolerances needed in the positioning the electronics in a Cartesian plane, than it "wouldn't cost anymore" to make the 4K panel. But how can this be so?
The LG WOLED architecture is essentially identical to an IGZO LCD architecture but with the LCD layer replaced with the 2 (or 3 :-) layer OLED material stack (orange + blue, red+green+blue, or whatever).

There is no patterning of the OLED layer (which is the big advantage of LGs approach), the only patterning is on the IGZO electrode layer and the RGB color filter layer. The IGZO electrode layer and the RGB color filter layer are already being patterned at very high yield for the production of 4K LED/LCDs. Current pricing for 4K LED/LCDs is more or less proof that there is no significant yield loss on the electrode backplane layer or RGB color filter layer in going from 1080p patterning to 4K patterning at the screen sizes being discussed (65", 77").

The OLED layer itself is identical whether being deposited on a 1080p backplane or on a 4K backplane, so there will be no difference in yield loss associated with the deposition of the OLED layers (which is almost certainly the primary source of yield loss in manufacturing WOLED). So while yield loss associate with deposition of the OLED layers is not insignificant (and is probably the dominant source of yield loss currently), it is not linked in any way to panel resolution and so the yield loss associated with depositing the OLED layers on a 1080p backplane and the yield loss associated with depositing the OLED layers on a 4K backplane is going to be about the same.

The street pricing of the 55" and 65" OLEDs support this assumption so far (independent of resolution) and street pricing of the 77EC9700 below $10,000 would be final confirmation.

LG has a great deal of OLED sheets coming off of the M2 line that they have to sell and they really don't care which panel sizes is on those sheets...
fafrd is online now  
post #627 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 01:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Cleveland Plasma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 12,455
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 541 Post(s)
Liked: 708
Cleveland Plasma is offline  
post #628 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 01:12 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Plasma View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by wse

Let me see 65" OLED or Sony X950!

Endquote:


Yep that sure is an easy answer........
For the 'idealized' 65EC9700 versus the 'real-world' Sony X950B, yes, that is an easy answer.


For the 'real-world' 65EC9700 versus the 'real-world' Sony X950B, it is still too soon to say (and by then, there are also likely to be lower-priced alternatives to the Sony X950B that deliver equivalent or superior image quality :-)
fafrd is online now  
post #629 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mo949's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 622
Oh fafrd, such uncharacteristic cautiousness all of a sudden? You know why I think its easy? When they are both the same price and the retailer himself is steering you towards the product not even available yet versus the one he can sell today and claim victory on
mo949 is offline  
post #630 of 3174 Old 08-25-2014, 02:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post
Oh fafrd, such uncharacteristic cautiousness all of a sudden? You know why I think its easy? When they are both the same price and the retailer himself is steering you towards the product not even available yet versus the one he can sell today and claim victory on

I don't think anyone can sell the 65X950B for the price Sony is asking! Dumping $6250 now on an overpriced FALD LED/LCD or spending the same on an as-yet-unproven WOLED is not as important as the option of holding out for another few months to see the full range of options available.

By Christmas, if there is a choice between a 'still needs some maturing' $6000 WOLED versus a Sharp-Elite-besting FALD LED/LCD costing about half that much, that would be a tougher call.

Now if the 65EC9700 proves to be ready for primetime, it just comes down to a matter of how deep your pockets are (but low likelihood of buyer's remorse :-)
andy A likes this.
fafrd is online now  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General
Gear in this thread



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off